Case Law Details
It is settled position in law that statement of fact recorded in the order of the Court/Tribunal has to be accepted as correct and conclusive. It cannot be contradicted by affidavit or otherwise as held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas S. Nayak 1982 (2) SCC 463, Central Bank of India vs. Vrajlal K. Gandhi 2003(6) SCC 573 and Jagvir Singh & Others vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 2007 (5) SCC 359.
Extract of the Case Law
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of India challenges the order dated 28th September, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s Miscellaneous Application for rectification of its order dated 14th September, 2105 passed under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’). This issue relate to Assessment Year 2002-03.
2. The grievance of the petitioner before us is that during course of hearing leading to the order dated 14th September, 2015 under Section 254(1) of the Act, a legal paper book was filed wherein a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manilal Tarachand (2002) 120 Taxman Page 676 amongst other cases were relied upon. The Tribunal while passing the order dated 14th September, 2015 did not refer to it and/or deal with it. Thus, it was a mistake apparent on the face of rectification of the order dated 14th September, 2015
3. In the above view it is submitted that the Tribunal should have exercised its jurisdiction vested in it by the Act by allowing the application. We note that the order of the Tribunal in respect of which rectification was sought was passed on 14th September, 2015 after having heard the parties on 9th September, 2015. The Miscellaneous Application for rectification was filed on 2nd May, 2016. In the rectification application as filed, after 7 months, the rectification sought was on various grounds such as under
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
True. Any one questioning a verdict must come before the tribunal in a reasonable time say about 60 or 90 days of the verdict, else the curative application called misc petition is not tenable; besides 2007 Apex ct judgement in Jasbir singh is indeed a guide; besides, statement of facts filed before ITAT always shd be treated final, is indeed correct proposition of law is my view too sir. tks